Neonatal Curettage of Large to Giant Congenital Melanocytic Nevi Under Local Anesthetic: A Case Series With Long-Term Follow Up.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal curettage of large to giant congenital melanocytic nevi (L-GCMN) is a simple, minimally invasive procedure typically performed within the first 2 weeks of life. OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively review our experience with serial curettage of L-GCMN in the neonatal period performed under local anesthesia and their long-term outcomes. METHODS: Curettage was performed by a single pediatric dermatologist on nine neonates with L-GCMN under local anesthetic and with oral analgesia between 2002 and 2016 in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. Patient charts were reviewed retrospectively to assess patient and procedure characteristics, tolerability, safety, cosmetic and functional outcomes, and malignant transformation. RESULTS: Patients were treated with an average of 6 curettage sessions (range 3 to 15) to remove the majority or entirety of the nevus. All patients tolerated local anesthesia well. The most common adverse event of the procedure was transient neutropenia. Two patients developed positive bacterial cultures without clinical signs of infection, treated with antibiotics. All curetted specimens demonstrated benign pathology. Patients were followed annually thereafter, for an average of 6 years. Eight patients with L-GCMN of the trunk had minimal to partial repigmentation with good cosmetic outcome. One patient had recurrence of a facial nevus. None of the patients developed cutaneous malignant melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: Curettage appears to be a safe and effective treatment option for select cases of L-GCMNs of the trunk. We do not recommend the procedure for face or scalp CMN. This procedure can be performed under local anesthesia with serial curettage to avoid potential risks of general anesthesia.

Access to biologic therapies in Canada for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare access to biologic therapies for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) across Canada, and to identify differences in provincial regulations and criteria for access. METHODS: Between June and August 2010, we compiled the provincial guidelines for reimbursement of biologic drugs for children with JIA and conducted a multicenter Canada-wide survey of pediatric rheumatologists to determine their experience with accessing biologic therapies for their patients. RESULTS: There were significant difficulties accessing biologic treatments other than etanercept and abatacept for children. There were large discrepancies in the access criteria and coverage of biologic agents across provinces, notably with age restrictions for younger children. CONCLUSION: Canadian children with JIA may not receive optimal internationally recognized "standard" care because pediatric coverage for biologic drugs through provincial formularies is limited and inconsistent across the country. There is urgent need for public policy to improve access to biologic therapies for these children to ensure optimal short-term and longterm health outcomes.